↓ Skip to main content

Informed Consent in Asymmetrical Relationships: an Investigation into Relational Factors that Influence Room for Reflection

Overview of attention for article published in NanoEthics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 160)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Informed Consent in Asymmetrical Relationships: an Investigation into Relational Factors that Influence Room for Reflection
Published in
NanoEthics, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11569-016-0262-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon Lydia Spruit, Ibo van de Poel, Neelke Doorn

Abstract

In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 46%
Unspecified 2 15%
Student > Master 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 4 31%
Unspecified 3 23%
Psychology 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Other 2 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,700,948
of 12,548,487 outputs
Outputs from NanoEthics
#17
of 160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,320
of 264,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NanoEthics
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,548,487 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 160 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.